Fringy, science-stuff, maybe fact or fiction?

So why did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 grant an "emergency" exemption allowing increased use of Gaucho -- typically invoked during a major infestation -- when only a few beetles were found in blueberries? Why did the agency also grant a "conditional" registration for its close relative, Pancho, allowing the chemical on the market with only partial testing? And why is the agency, hiding behind a curtain of "trade secrets," still refusing to disclose whether the additional tests required of companies in such cases were conducted and, if so, with what results?

Therein lies a tale. Most pesticides, we're told, are safe. So we add about 5 billion pounds a year of these deadly chemicals to our world, enough to encircle the planet if it were packaged in 100-pound sacks. Sure, they are regulated -- but badly -- under the antiquated Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. This law allows a chemical on the market unless it's proved to pose "an unreasonable risk," far too weak a standard.

Gerard Eyries, a Bayer marketing manager, said in connection with the French action that "imidacloprid [that's Gaucho] left a small residue in nectar and pollen, but there was no evidence of a link with the drop in the bee population." Bayer also blamed seed makers and suggested that there may be "nonchemical causes" for this massive bee kill. But Bayer may not be entirely objective here. In 2006, Gaucho sales topped $746 million.

Something is killing the bees, though. Some scientists suspect a virus; others mites, even cellphones. (Bees are not known to use phones, though, having their own communications system -- a dance called the "waggle.")

Here in the U.S., the bee kill is a big problem. Domesticated bees were brought to the U.S. on the Mayflower. Today, they contribute at least $15 billion to the nation's agricultural economy. For example, California's $2-billion-a-year almond crop is completely dependent on honeybees from about 1.5 million hives for pollination. This year, more than 2.4 million bee colonies -- 36% of the total -- were lost in the U.S., according to the Apiary Inspectors of America. Some colonies collapsed in two days.

Part of the problem is how we farm. Rather than rotating crops, farmers grow the same one each year. This "monoculture" creates a breeding ground for pests. Farmers then use chemicals that kill not only the target organism but other life forms as well -- like honeybees. That this approach may now be coming back to bite big-production agriculture is not without some irony. For decades the agriculture industry has been its beneficiary -- with farmworkers, consumers and local communities the victims. But, actually, we're all in trouble.

No independent government testing is required before a pesticide is registered for use. Large gaps in basic scientific knowledge about pesticides remain, including their environmental "fate" (where they end up) and their toxicity to humans and to wildlife. A problem pesticide may be removed from the market only after a long process and full trial -- something that should be done before. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 improved control of residues in our food. That didn't help the bees.

Rachel Carson was vilified by an industry smear nearly 50 years ago, after the release of her book, "Silent Spring." "If we were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson," said American Cyanamid, the maker of DDT, "we would return to the Dark Ages ... insects, vermin and disease would once again inherit the Earth." But, as Carson so eloquently put it in a CBS documentary in 1964: "Man's attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we now have acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is part of nature, and his war is inevitably a war against himself."

Al Meyerhoff, an environmental attorney in Los Angeles, is a former director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's public health program.

Posted by: NeutronNorman at 05:08 | link | comments (7)

#1  31 July 2008 - 06:52

 

It makes sense to me. Bees and birds pollinate. Without pollination what happens? Why is it so hard for the world to understand that the pursuit of money will ultimately destroy us, including those who profit from this madness? If our environment is unable to support the world population due to pollution and alteration - what the hell good is money going to do you? Blah! Good post.

RomaCittaEterna

#2  01 August 2008 - 00:37

 

The end of life, as we know it without pollination.

NN

Anonymous

#3  01 August 2008 - 02:54

 

there is a quote that is attributed to einstein that says something to the effect that "if bees disappear from the earth, humans have about four years left." a bit apocalyptic perhaps, but it is a sign that we really need to pay attention to. colony collapse is a very real thing.

limine

#4  01 August 2008 - 21:35

 

Oh Limine:

You have no clue how my heart hurts. "if bees disappear from the earth, humans have about four years left."

Humans are responsible, but to hurt and destiny all other living beings? I mean, all other living organisms. I don't see that much of a difference between what I am and what the most minute living entity is. It's like the ghost in the machine. I don't know.

NN

Anonymous

#5  02 August 2008 - 03:35

 

yes norman -- we are all connected. all living things. inter-dependent. we are all one. everything is precious and brief.

in the new shambala sun, thich nhat hahn is on the cover and he talks about global warming and the state of the planet. he says:

We have the power to decide the destiny of our planet. If we awaken to our true situation, there will be a collective change in our consciousness. We have to do something to wake people up. We have to help the Buddha wake up the people who are living in a dream.

Anonymous

#6  03 August 2008 - 12:01

 

If you ask my husban, the trees are killing the bees... Yeah, I married him.

Ladyinthemoon

#7  03 August 2008 - 22:38

 

Huh?

NN

Anonymous